The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1887-11-22
PRACTICAL PROHIBITION.


PRACTICAL PROHIBITION.
Historical Parallel and u Suggestive
e51 Reminder.
N. y. Timer
Tho ProhibitionistG are very fond OF
drawing parallels batween their party and
the antl.slSvery movement, Many Of
their pct historical analosies arc open to
sOrious criticism, as has ol.cn been shown.
In one respect, however,, q DinilRg!ty be.
tween their present political attitude and
that Of proies.od ouemlcg OF the nlave
trade o hundred years ago may DO fairly
made out. We refer TO tho attempt 10 re-
strict thu importation oil B!aves by leyying
a tax upoR oil brought into the country.
The question cAno upin the very first
Congress, Parker, Of Virginia, moved
that a tax OF $40 bsimposod on every im-
ported plave. Madison supported the
motion, and explained tho clause OF the
Constitution under which tho action was
proposed as having been adopted In order
TO enable Cougreaato "e1preas q national
diGapprobntion oil tho slave trade" Henry
Wilson says OF tho views expressed by
Madison that they were humane, lust,
comprehensive aud sta!esmanlike," aud
that their adoption by Congress would
havo tended 10 tho "anelinratlon, ~restric.
ton, and extinction Of slavery" The
neGaure, In TACT, was the most thorough
which could polslbly be enacted at that
time because. Of the clauSs OF the Cons.i.
tuition torbldding tho prohibition Of
tho slave trade baforos 1905. and
was understood to be distinctly hostile to
tho iDtcreaIu OF slave ownern. Yet 1t was
opposed on grounds which are q curious
anticipation OF the arguments and outcries
OF the Prohibitionista to-day against q
restrictive tax on the liquor traffic. The
cry Of "blood money! and of legislative
''uanction" was raised thou, juOt rs it is
nov. Roger Sherman, Of Connecticut,
protested himself q great enemy of~nlGvery,
but he could not reconcils himself to the
thought Of human beings 80 O subiect OF
import" Fisher Amea .'detes!sd slavery
from hia soui,' but thought that the pro.
posed tax would appear to countsngnce
the importation. Opposition along these
lines vas 80 strong that the resolution wsa
finally withdrawn, and thus the first anti.
n!avery bill WAS defeated by a~nli.slayery
men.
The uame unwillingness to unite in tne
only anti-Blavory legislation then possible
marked the temper Of many who loudly
boosted their enmity 10 slsvery, when the
question was yevived In 1904. The motion
to lay a tax Of $40 YVES offered in that wear
by Bard, oil Pennsylvania. He ssid that
tho passage Of his resolution would "show
to the world that the general government
are opposed to nlavery,' and "would ciys
every encouragement in our power to the
Importation OF Blaves," His colleague, Mr..
Findlay, gave hearty support to tho mo-
ton as e%mbodyips the most rspressiye
legislation then practicable. "Ata certsin
period" he sRid, "CongroPs would posssss
tho power OF prohibiting the trade Alto
gethe1, and until then it enjoyed the poger
of taxation" But the itea that to tar
meant to sanction waa advanced with
even moro v%ehenerce than in 1880 Mr.
Bedinger, Of kentucky, who ayerred
that he WAS "as hostile to slavery ga any
man in the Union," strenuouuly or.
eued to that effect. The Speaker. Mr..
Macon, Of North Carolina, left the chair
10 maintain that II the tax ahould BE- rosod
1t "%onld become ths duty OF armed ships
OF the United States to protect this trade.
You will only ~legal:ze 1t by taxing it, and
those who 90 into this traffic will have a
right to your protection and will demand
it." In like manner, aleo, appeared the
strong repugnance Of come to deriving
any revenue from o trade which IL was
proposed to restrict and discourage by
taxing so strong that they we're led into
voting exactly in to line OF the alaye hold.
ore. Thus MIR, Moore wac "as,ouished to
hear gentlemen reprobate a traffic as hor.
rid and infamous, and yet wish to draw a
revenue from iniany.h And Mr., Bedir.
ger, who Thought the nlave trade little
better than murder" would not vote to
admit a shilling into the Treasury Of the
United States from ouch a source. The
reault was the postponement OF the reso.
luton, which became Law only in 1906.
Nos, this controversy Of O century $50
10 SO lar removed from preaent contentious
and interests that it can be Judged fairly
BY Gil. No one, We presume, will now be
found to deny that this tax on the impor.
tation Of slaves WAC al anti, slavery mese.
nre ca advanced and radical as could then
be drawn under the Constitution, and
that 1t produces an Impression OF burlesoue
to lind men opposing it who declared that
they were the bitterest enemie5 OF ala.
very. The Pfohibitioniats themselyse.
We arc sure, would wiah to have voted. In
1859. Tor restriction Of the slave trade by
taxation, when pro hibitlon wag imposs!.
BILE, instead Of for & FREQ trade in slaves.
The question we would put to them Is ii
they are not in danger Of being Judged q
hundred years hence to have been "a in.
consistent and suicidal in their 6ercs
opposition to practical measures for the
restraint Of the liquor traffic. Will thew
not admit that the great mass OF tho
people now believe prohibition to bo mat |
ls inpoeaible Of present enactment, on &C..
count Of the unwritten law OF public sen.
timent which declares againat it, as was
tho destruction OF the slave trade, before
1903, on aCcoun! Of o written clauss in tina
Constitution iorbidding it? And why.
then, will they continue 10 ]dsnounce thoso
temperance men who say to-day of the |
liquor traffic, "a the wisest Btatesmsn Of a
hundred yenrs since eaid OF the slave trade,
AT q later date We shall have power to
prohibit 1t; at pteaent We enjoy the power
taxing it2" !
In any case it 10 certain that the coming
year is to see a movement In this State for
the taxing Of the saloons stronger than
eyor before. All the algns point to that,
The plain teaching Of tho past election
comedies with the declared purposes Of.
the Republican leaders in foreahsdoYiuc
an era Of Legislation for New York along